PEOPLE OF MI V KOBEAY QURAN SWAFFORD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 18, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 268499
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 05-010897-01
KOBEAY QURAN SWAFFORD,
Defendant-Appellee.
ON REMAND
Before: Judges Zahra, P.J., and Bandstra and Owens, JJ.
ZAHRA, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the correspondence sent by the
prosecutor’s office to the United States Marshal on June 1, 2004, is not a valid detainer for
purposes of the IAD. I conclude this correspondence became a valid detainer for purposes of the
IAD no later than March 2, 2005, when it accompanied defendant to federal prison, was verified,
and the prosecutor was notified that defendant was requesting disposition on the outstanding
charges filed against him. Because I conclude the detainer is valid, I must, as noted in the
majority opinion at page 8, “find that the provisions of the IAD were violated and that the
convictions against defendant must be vacated.” I would affirm the lower court’s dismissal of
the charges against defendant and remand this matter to the trial court with instructions that
defendant’s convictions be vacated.
The majority concludes the June 1, 2004 correspondence is not a valid detainer under the
IAD because the prosecutor did not file it with the institution in which defendant was serving his
federal sentence and there is “scant information indicating how the Bureau of Prisons received
notification that defendant had outstanding criminal charges in Michigan.” Majority opinion, p.
12. Although the June 1, 2004, correspondence was filed with the U.S. Marshal before
defendant was imprisoned, it is without dispute that the correspondence followed defendant to
federal prison, where a federal prison official verified “the request to lodge a detainer,” the
prosecutor’s office caused the clerk of the court to certify the warrant and complaint, and the
federal prison official subsequently sent the prosecutor a letter stating that “[a] detainer has been
filed against this subject in your favor.” Defendant’s Application for Leave to Appeal to the
Supreme Court, Exhibit 1.
The federal institution in which defendant was imprisoned regarded the detainer as
lodged once it was verified, as evidenced by the sending of the detainer letter. Moreover, the
prosecutor’s conduct supports the conclusion that it also viewed the detainer as being properly
-1-
lodged, since it did nothing incongruous with the notice that a detainer had been filed in its favor.
To the contrary, the prosecutor ultimately filed all the documents that would be consistent with
the understanding that an IAD detainer had been lodged with the federal prison.
Having concluded the detainer against defendant was properly lodged with the Bureau of
Prisons, defendant was entitled pursuant to art III(a) of the IAD, MCL 780.601, to be brought to
trial within 180 days of the date he requested disposition of the charges that were the subject of
the detainer. Here, the prosecutor failed to comply with requirements of the IAD. For these
reasons, I would affirm.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
